User talk:Lutesque

Hello. My name is EGL1234. I agree with you edit to Little Nightmares II, but it was unnecessary to instruct the ip user to "fuck off". I have insted pasted a vandalism template on his/her talk page. Next time please do that. EGL1234 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Little Nightmares 2 have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Little Nightmares 2 was changed by Lutesque (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.870992 on 2021-02-15T04:17:25+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lutesque! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In reviewing some of your edits of the Little Nightmares II article, I would like to ask that you refrain from using vulgarity and abusive comments in the edit summaries. You can make the same statements without resorting to such discourtesy. As far as the content of your edits are concerned, I'm not weighing in on their productivity. Just please, be mindful of what you type in the edit summary, please and thank you. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In particular this contains a Personal attack. It may be frustrating but do not use edit summaries like that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the edit, without even explaining it no less? It misses one character. Watch the show and its credits again maybe? --CapoFantasma97 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.IronManCap (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Suicide Squad (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please discuss on Talk:Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) your reasoning for removing the sentence stating Thanos is the antagonist of Infinity War and Endgame so that we can come to a consensus. Please do not remove that again without doing so, thanks. Bloodyboppa (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Doctor Octopus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Forensic Kidology (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Doctor Octopus, you may be blocked from editing. Forensic Kidology (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Forensic Kidology:, would you care to explain this edit summary where you tell Lutesque not to remove a template when he only made copyedits and added a category? Especially since that's exactly what you had previously told him to do? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bane in other media shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Now cut it out. You've got 7 days to discuss it at the talk page to come to some sort of agreement or your likely to get blocked for edit warring if you start up again. Amortias (T)(C) 21:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sal Maroni. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. For this edit summary. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sal Maroni. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Capsulecap. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Comicsgate seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that Charles and Darlington would actually show up again, but that would not matter right now, just that they were credited as main for that one Primal episode: “The Primal Theory”. They were not guest stars, they were the actual protagonists of that episode, and so should be listed as part of the Main cast. 103.104.117.205 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is what happens if Primal season 3 does become a reality and it does become an anthology and “The Primal Theory” was indeed the backdoor pilot for that? Because then you have a whole lot of "main" characters appearing solely for their standalone episodes because that is the nature of an anthology and what then, do we start listing all of them? Do you see Love, Death & Robots doing this? Lutesque (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the breed of anthology series Genndy Tartakovsky was talking about was not one like Love, Death & Robots, but more like Infinity Train or Skins: with one to two seasons following a select group of characters (Spear and Fang for the first two) before switching to new characters in the same fictional world for the next one (Charles and Darlington in “The Primal Theory”, and yet-to-be-specified new characters for the eventual third season). So how to list them should not really be a problem. 103.104.117.205 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Lutesque (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a bit surprised to have to say this to someone who has been editing for two years, but you must cite reliable sources for everything you add to articles. At Saruman you have now twice added wholly uncited claims. This is obviously not acceptable, either on the WikiProject or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia. I hope I will not be obliged to mention the matter again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the pedantic and condescending attitude. An addition as minimal as mine for Saruman's article does not justify you coming here to wag your finger at me. I got the message already, no need for your sermon. Do you make it a habit to threaten and lecture other users on their talk pages whenever they make an edit you don't like? Lutesque (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find it uncomfortable. You may note that I did not mention it at all the first time, but since simple reversion did not work, and I do not normally issue warning templates to established editors, and - to labour the point - the behaviour seemed to be ongoing, there was little option but to put the matter plainly. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry for flying off the handle there and being so coarse. I need to work on that. Tell me, could this Collider article https://collider.com/lord-of-the-rings-saruman-evil/ be considered serviceable as a source for what I was trying to add to Saruman's page? Lutesque (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. It's not a scholarly source, and while it's probably above the grade of the forums it is not the kind of source we should be using for a mature, fully-cited, and formally-reviewed article like this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Sorry for reverting your edit on How to Train your Dragon 3. I have not taken physics courses yet and I was using knowledge I had gotten from Minecraft. Sorry dude. HiGuys69420 (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Nothing to apologize for. Lutesque (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks HiGuys69420 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Predator (film). Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BioShock. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying "not an improvement" a counterargument does not make. I was retooling the plot description to be less wordy as well as taking out the fat like Cohen and Steinman, who are not main characters in the story, and you chose to get on my case about it. That's it. Lutesque (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lutesque As soon as your edits were being contested... by multiple editors... you needed to head to the talk page and start discussing your goals for the article. -- ferret (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So users like you can then ignore and condescend me even more? Great idea. I take this to the talk page and my points would get shot down without ever taking off. Lutesque (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's your choice how you handle this. It's a collaborative project. If you cannot collaborate, your stay may come to the end. Your talk page is littered with edit war warnings and a past block. The future block is unlikely to be lenient. -- ferret (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at BioShock. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferret, in case you missed "So fascinating how no one has yet managed to present a real and detailed argument as to why all of this overly elaborate wording, excessive narrative detail, and overall fluff merit staying so much. Are you people also stupid, on top of being assholes?". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated edit warring, battleground mentality, personal attacks.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  -- ferret (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]